Definitions of a criminal organization prescribed in Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act

Criminal law article 114(1) requires that a certain number of people have to be equipped with a minimum leading system, which leads the organization, as a continuous combination with the common purpose of committing a certain crime.

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 and two others

Prosecutor (as to all the defendants):

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 75No7533 delivered on December 26, 1975

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

The purpose of an organization which aims to commit a crime under Article 114(1) of the Criminal Code refers to a continuous combination formed under the common purpose that many and specified persons commit a certain crime, which is intended to prevent the destruction of national law and order by multiple joint power. Thus, as long as the organization has been organized under the common purpose, it is required to have a minimum leading system leading the organization as long as it is an organization with a simple collective purpose.

In this regard, the court below's decision that "the crime organization under Article 114 of the Criminal Act is an aggregate that a large number of people are continuously combined with the purpose of committing a certain crime, and is equipped with a system such as a minimum deceptive scheme and allocation for the promotion of order within the organization," is just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit, and the records are examined, and it is acceptable for the original adjudication that concluded that there is no evidence that the defendants organized or joined the crime organization in the same purport as the above explanation, and there is no error of misunderstanding the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, there is no debate about the theory of lawsuit.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

According to the provision of Article 363 of the Criminal Procedure Act, unreasonable sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)